click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
attack, but did his testimony get the obama administration in even more hot water? >> a short time ago, the former cia director left capitol hill after five hours of testimony, closed, classified testimony before the house & senate intelligence committees. >> general pet petraeus' briefing of comprehensive. it added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. >> the talking points were must have more specific about the al qaeda involvement, but the final ones indicate even though it was clearly evident to the cia that there was al qaeda involvement. >> talking points prepared for her. >> said it was al qaeda. >> sometime between september 14 and september 16, somebody took the al qaeda element out and put the video in. >> the question we have is who made the changes and why? we haven't been able to get that answer. >> petraeus is saying, i said it was terrorism from the get go. if you did, why did susan rice go out two days later and say it was the video. >> why we need a select committee on this. >> the general had to acknowledge and none of us li
this territory for weeks now that he thinks the obama administration is incompetent. we know his stand when it comes to libya. let the other committees do their work. i don't think a watergate-style hearing will necessarily advance -- >> greta: i disagree. there is too much duplication and we have people coming at six hearings. i would rather streamline it. susan, what do you think? >> when have you six different committees, they're often unable to share information. the spell gent committee can't talk about the classified hearings. so mccain's point, if we have one place where all of this information can be centralized, we can get to the bottom of this faster. this is four americans who were killed. this is not -- this is worse than watergate because people died -- the question that the republicans have, why -- why aren't democrats agreeing to a specially committee. >> i think no one says it's not serious. i think that is a distraction from the point. sometimes i think congress -- there is -- there is a regular order that sometimes in the mess that you are talking about has its own intelli
to fake a scandal in the obama administration. paul waldman calls it scandal envy. nixon had watergate, clinton had le win ski and obama has gotten off scot-free and it's making the republicans livid. republicans are not going to get the watergate this time around. senator harry reid wrote a letter to john mccain and lindsey graham saying a collect committee for investigation will not happen. the time for phoney outrage is over. republicans need to get back to the real problems facing americans. get your cell phones out. tonight's question, will the gop stop their witch hunt on benghazi? text a for yes, b for no to 622639. or you can leave a comment on our blog. and we'll bring you results later on in the show. joining me now is retired colonel lawrence wilkerson, former chief of staff number colin powell's term. colonel, good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be here, ed. >> take us down the road of talking points. do we see unified talking points? is this common practice that the intell committee will get together to brief the congress and to brief the country? and is it usual
be eager to help if the reelected obama administration wanted to take the lead and kickstart a process that deserves to be called a peace process. we certainly hope that would have been. with regard to the drug problem, i just want to add that of course everybody is now buying drones, even european armies are buying drones. but interestingly enough, as are injurious to countries in other parts of the world has declined because of the not so successful experience in over the last decade. i hope i'm correct i cannot recall a moment in recent history where in the absence of, you know, act of u.s. leadership or participation, the europeans are contemplating driving up plans right now for a military mission to molly. with the argument that what is going on in molly could he not necessarily, but could develop into something very similar to the kinds of phenomena that forced us into afghanistan a decade ago. so what i'm trying to say is the birth of the drug technology matters, i don't believe international development will allow us the luxury of keeping the boys home. there will be unfortuna
at the performance of susan rice, among others, and the obama administration, and so, harry reid sent a letter yesterday and told john mccain he is not going to get the special committee he wanted. but i think the administration simply is going to have to watch republicans spend their energy on this. david petraeus tried to make the argument, defending susan rice, that she was repeating talking points, that she'd been given for the reason that the administration did not want to alert terrorist groups that we knew that they were behind the attack. i'm not sure that that's going to quiet the criticism. we're just going to have to see how long it plays out. >> you saw the meeting yesterday with the president and congressional leaders on the fiscal cliff. how confident are you that a compromise will be reached in a timely fashion? >> pretty confident, actually, alex. you know, i thought the outcome of that meeting was about as positive as you could hope to see from a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders with the president of the united states, all four leaders, pelosi, mcconnell, reid, boeh
mccain that they are not going to cooperate with the second administration of barack obama, that they are going to stall out all of his nominations. this is their warning shot that they are going to filibuster her appointment and perhaps anybody else's. i think that's what it is. and here is the intelligence committee member. >> again, i'm really confused. the only point in contention really is whether or not this attack emerged from a protest and as soon as the information became clearer and it did take some time for that to happen, then that was perfectly clarified. there is absolutely -- it's inconceivable to me for anybody to speculate there would be a deliberate misleading of the american people. why would there be? it's perfectly inconsequential al. there was a spontaneous demonstration and the terrorist groups organized to take opportunistic advantage of it or not. in any case, there is no advantage to mislead the american people in that regard. i mean you have to have motivation behind it and there is none. and as soon as the intelligence became clearer and as a mem
during the entire bush administration. by the time president obama is rehydrated on january 20th, there's probably about 300 in his first term. cipro is an example of something the united states was worried about defensively, but was only beginning to go ostensibly at the very end of the bush administration. olympic games, program against iran was something that managed to expand considerably until someone made a programming error and got out to the world. special forces is something we've been lying on far more now as a light footprint strategy than we ever did before. with each one of these repulsive discovered that the return curve of when other powers or nonstate actors will have the same technology is shorter and shorter. so you now, we see china, israel, others have drones now. every nymphet drums right now. it's going to be a very short time. before we do with the other side of that. we're already dealing with cyberattacks each and every day on our infrastructure, not the kind in the olympic games, but similar kinds. the answer to your question is it can reinforce existing power
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)